<<

INTRODUCTION

AUSTRALIAN AS POSTCOLONIAL LITERATURE

Nathanael O’Reilly

Postcolonial Issues in presents thirteen new essays that address many of the numerous ways in which Australian literature is postcolonial and can be read using postcolonial reading strategies.1 The collection addresses a wide variety of Australian texts produced from the colonial period through to the present, including works by, among others, Henry Lawson, Rolf Boldrewood, Miles Franklin, , Jack Lindsay, , Francis Webb, James McAuley, Judith Wright, , , , Richard Flanagan, , Andrew McGahan, Kate Grenville, Tony Birch, Scott, , and . The chapters focus on works by Indig- enous authors and writers of European descent and examine numer- ous postcolonial issues, including , fi rst contact, resistance, appropriation, race relations, language usage, indigeneity, immigration/ invasion, land rights and ownership, , marginalization, 2 POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES IN AUSTRALIAN LITERATURE mapping, naming, mimicry, the role of historical narratives, settler guilt and denial, and anxieties regarding belonging. The essays emphasize the postcolonial nature of Australian literature and utilize postcolonial theory to analyze Australian texts. The primary objectives of this essay collection are to emphasize and examine the postcolonial nature of Australian literature. Within postco- lonial studies, literature from South Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean is privileged, causing the literature of settler societies such as , , and (and to a lesser extent South Africa) to be marginalized, ignored, or excluded. This collection provides ample evi- dence that Australian literature is indeed postcolonial literature, that it deserves more recognition as such, and that postcolonial reading strat- egies provide immensely productive methods for analyzing Australian texts. Moreover, the collection hopes to fi ll a gap in postcolonial studies. While numerous collections of essays on Australian literature have pre- viously been published, most of them have focused either on an indi- vidual author, such as Andreas Gaile’s Fabulating Beauty: Perspectives on the Fiction of Peter Carey, or on specifi c themes, such as David Cal- lahan’s Australia—Who Cares? Essay collections focusing on the post- colonial nature of national and regional have also previously been published, such as Violeta Kelertas’ Baltic , Joan Aaron’s Postcolonial Wales, and Laura Moss’ Is Canada Postcolonial? Unsettling . However, Postcolonial Issues in Aus- tralian Literature is the fi rst collection to focus exclusively on Austra- lian literature as postcolonial literature. This project developed out of my experiences as an expatriate Austra- lian pursuing graduate work in Australian and postcolonial literature in the . When I began to seriously investigate Australian and postcolonial literature, it quickly became clear that both fi elds are margin- alized within the American academy and that Australian literary studies is marginalized within postcolonial studies. Many English departments in American universities do not employ a single scholar who special- izes in postcolonial literature. Moreover, I do not know of any scholars who are employed by an American university for the primary purpose of Australian Literature as Postcolonial Literature 3 teaching and studying Australian literature; Australianists in the Ameri- can academy research (and occasionally teach) Australian literature as an adjunct to their primary roles as teachers of, for example, American, British, and/or postcolonial literature.2 Moreover, to my knowledge there is not a single PhD program in the United States in which Australian lit- erature is a formal specialization. To make matters worse for would-be scholars of Australian literature, it is not uncommon for senior faculty members to dismiss Australian literature as “not a real fi eld of study,” “merely a branch of ,” or simply “not worth studying,” to quote just a few of the remarks I have encountered. The marginal status of Australian literature within the American acad- emy more broadly and within postcolonial studies specifi cally is clearly evident in the American academic job market. The 2009 Modern Lan- guage Association Job Information List (JIL) did not contain a single advertisement containing the word “Australian” or the phrase “Austra- lian literature.” In 2008, the JIL contained two advertisements that listed Australian literature as one of several acceptable specialties; within the last half dozen years, I have not seen or heard of any open posi- tions at American universities that listed Australian literature as a pos- sible specialty. Scholars of Australian literature who wish to work in the American academy are limited to applying for positions as specialists in postcolonial, world, or Anglophone literature.3 However, such positions often stipulate that the successful candidate must specialize in African, Caribbean, or South Asian literature and sometimes must be profi cient in a language from one of those regions. There is clearly a bias within postcolonial studies against scholars who focus on literature from the settler colonies, especially Australia, Can- ada, and New Zealand.4 The great irony of the situation in the American academy is that the United States is itself a postcolonial and a set- tler colony; however, for a great many reasons, none of which I have the space to discuss here, the literature of the United States is not often read as postcolonial. Although American universities are not legally allowed to stipulate in job advertisements that they seek to hire a candidate of a particular nationality, ethnicity, or race, there is much anecdotal evidence 4 POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES IN AUSTRALIAN LITERATURE to suggest that search committees seeking to recruit a postcolonial stud- ies scholar often prefer to hire scholars who not only specialize in the literature of Africa, the Caribbean, or South Asia but also hail from those regions. A department chair confi ded in me that the search committee for a postcolonial studies position that was advertised as open to schol- ars specializing in the literature of any postcolonial nation had actually decided before the search began that the successful candidate must not only study African, Caribbean, or South Asian literature but must also be a native of one of those regions. Unsurprisingly, the successful candidate was an American-educated scholar from . The bias within postcolonial literary studies in favor of African, Caribbean, or South Asian literature is so pervasive that some postcolo- nial theorists, such as Robert J. C. Young, have gone so far as to attempt to defi ne postcolonialism in a manner that excludes settler colonies alto- gether. Young claims that the “third world is the postcolonial world” (16), identifi es the postcolonial world as being comprised of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (including the Caribbean) (4, 17), and claims that “tricontinental” is “a more appropriate term than ‘postcolonial’ ” (17). Young defi nes “postcolonial” in a manner that excludes settler col- onies, despite the fact that he begins his book by posing questions such as the following:

Do you feel that your own people and country are somehow always positioned outside the mainstream?… Do you sense that those speaking would never think of trying to fi nd out how things seem to you, from where you are? That you live in a world of others, a world that exists for others? (1; original emphasis)

Such questions surely resonate with many Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders, who often feel marginalized and ignored, yet Young fails to acknowledge that the citizens of the postcolonial settler colonies share such sentiments with non-Westerners. Young’s refusal to acknowledge the postcoloniality of settler colonies is nothing new; almost two decades ago, Alan Lawson pointed out that “so-called Third World critics and theorists” have been reluctant to grant Australian Literature as Postcolonial Literature 5 settler cultures “a place on the table of cultural repression, dispersal, and interpellation” (157). Interestingly, Young does not cite the postcolonial theorists Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffi ths, and Helen Tiffi n (two of whom are Australian, and the third an Australian resident) despite the centrality to postcolonial studies of their work, especially The Empire Writes Back. Graham Huggan, a leading postcolonial theorist and critic who has writ- ten extensively about Australian literature, notes in his recent book Aus- tralian Literature: Postcolonialism, , Transnationalism that “[i]t is sometimes forgotten that one of the foundational critical texts for post- colonial literary studies, The Empire Writes Back … was written by three Australians” (28).5 Henry Schwarz, an American critic, argues that The Empire Writes Back “canonized” the term “post-colonial” in academia (14). Gaurav Desai and Supriya Nair, the editors of Postcolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism, also present a version of postcolonialism that favors Africa, South Asia, and the Caribbean and largely excludes the settler colonies. The words “Australia” and “Aus- tralian” do not even appear in the index to Desai and Nair’s collection, and of the thirty-seven essays presented in the anthology, only one deals with Australia. Moreover, the essay that focuses on Australia, Pal Ahlu- walia’s “When Does a Settler Become a Native? Citizenship and Iden- tity in a Settler Society,” does not address a single work of Australian literature. The non-Australian neophyte student of postcolonial studies encountering Desai and Nair’s anthology could certainly be forgiven for believing that Australian literature is not postcolonial literature, for that is the message that the collection sends. Anna Johnston and Alan Lawson argue that “the exclusion of settler colonies from postcolonial analyses” constitutes “an erasure of colonial and complexity” (367). They contend, moreover, that “[t]he argument that settler colonies are not admissible as postcolonial … involves a privileging of one kind of colonial experience over others,” forestalling “an understanding of the various manifestations of colonial activity” and functioning as “a kind of postcolonial exoticism” (367). Thus, to exclude Australia from the realm of the postcolonial is to liter- ally and metaphorically narrow the fi eld, limit the breadth and depth of 6 POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES IN AUSTRALIAN LITERATURE exploration, and privilege a particular way of being postcolonial.6 Nar- row defi nitions of “postcolonial” that exclude settler colonies such as Australia not only serve to marginalize rich bodies of literature and liter- ary criticism, they also ignore and/or obscure the fact that there are many kinds of postcolonialism, many types of postcolonial societies, and many ways for texts to be postcolonial. One of the most prominent and infl u- ential postcolonial theorists, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, acknowledges that Australia is part of the postcolonial world and that Australia’s post- coloniality is complex (xv, xviii). As Brian Edwards argues, “[J]ust as there is no monolithic there is no single post- and nor should there be” (142). In this volume, I adhere to Ashcroft, Griffi ths, and Tiffi n’s broad defi nition of “post-colonial,” which they describe as covering “all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of to the present day” (Empire 2). Thus, according to Ashcroft, Griffi ths, and Tiffi n’s defi nition, all Australian lit- erature is postcolonial, broadly speaking, since all Australian literature has been produced in a culture impacted by “the imperial process.” However, while insisting that Australian literature is postcolonial lit- erature and deserves equal status with the literature of other postcolonial , such as India, , and Jamaica, I wish to acknowledge that Australian literature can be both postcolonial and not postcolonial and feel that insisting that Australian literature as a whole is solely postcolo- nial or not is reductive and essentialist. Clearly, many works of Austra- lian literature are postcolonial in terms of subject matter and technique, and Australian society is postcolonial in many ways. However, many Australian texts do not engage with postcolonial issues at all, and Aus- tralian society can legitimately be viewed as other than postcolonial; for example, many understand Australia as a colo- nial or neocolonial society. In her essay “Black on Black,” Indigenous author Melissa Lucashenko addresses colonialism and Indigenous land ownership, arguing that labeling Australia “post-colonial” is “the big- gest crock of shit I’ve been asked to swallow in a long time,” since two years before the publication of her article, the Queensland government “used its legislative powers to put 12 percent of the state off-limits to Australian Literature as Postcolonial Literature 7 native title claims … is that post-colonialism? Cos, if it is, it feels a lot like colonialism to the Indigenous owners” (115).7 Likewise, in his essay “Covered Up with Sand,” Indigenous author expresses doubt that contemporary Australia can be consid- ered a postcolonial society due to a number of factors, including the tiny percentage of Australians who are descendents of the Indigenous peo- ples, Australia’s failure to become an independent republic, the lack of power afforded to Indigenous peoples within Australian society, and the lack of a truly hybrid culture that blends Indigenous and colonial cultures (120–121). Scott’s argument reveals an interesting set of defi nitions for a postcolonial society and points to just one of the many ways the term “postcolonial” can be defi ned. As Huggan puts it, “[W]hile Australia is postcolonial with respect to its former British colonizers, it remains very much colonial or, perhaps more accurately, neo-colonial in its treatment of its own indigenous peoples” (27; original emphasis). In her essay “I Still Call Australia Home: Indigenous Belonging and Place in a White Postcolonizing Society,” Indigenous scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson describes Australia as a “postcolonizing society” and notes that she uses the verb “postcolonizing” “to signify the active, the current and the con- tinuing nature of the colonising relationship that positions” Indigenous Australians “as belonging but not belonging” (38). Moreton-Robinson acknowledges the complexity of attempting to defi ne Australia as colo- nial, postcolonial, neocolonial, or postcolonizing, noting that “[t]here may well be spaces in Australia that could be described as postcolonial but these are not spaces inhabited by Indigenous people” (30). However, a distinction should be made between Australian society and Australian literature. Just because Australian society is postcolo- nial (or not), it does not necessarily follow that Australian literature is postcolonial (or not). Thus, while it seems imprudent to declare that Australian literature as a whole is not postcolonial (the scholarship in this volume and many other publications clearly proves otherwise), like- wise, it would also be a mistake to claim that all Australian literature is postcolonial (which is not the same as declaring that Australia is a postcolonial society). However, it seems reasonable to claim that most 8 POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES IN AUSTRALIAN LITERATURE

Australian literature is postcolonial and most Australian literature can be better understood through the application of postcolonial reading strate- gies, regardless of whether or not one believes that Australian society is postcolonial. In his recent article “After Postcolonialism,” David Carter questions the continuing usefulness and relevance of postcolonial literary studies and claims that “to some extent literary postcolonialism now feels like a discipline from an earlier historical moment” (114). Carter argues that “postcolonial theory … has not proven suffi cient (and in some cases not even necessary) to our studies and knowledge of colonisation, imperi- alism and their various ‘post’ formations” (116). Australian academics such as Carter are certainly not alone in questioning the contemporary relevance, ongoing usefulness, and future of postcolonial studies. In May 2007, PMLA, the journal of the Modern Language Association, published a roundtable discussion entitled “The End of Postcolonial Theory?” in which seven postcolonial scholars debated whether the fi eld of postcolonial studies is “over.” Such a discussion seems remarkably premature, especially when one considers the large number of articles and books published in postcolonial studies each year8 and the fact that many English departments at American universities are hiring postcolo- nial scholars for the fi rst time, adding courses in postcolonial theory and literature, and adding postcolonial theory and literature to their doctoral programs as a specialization and comprehensive exam fi eld.9 One could argue that postcolonial studies is expanding and becom- ing more infl uential, despite its marginal status, rather than experienc- ing its death throes. The contributions in this volume and in numerous other recent publications demonstrate that postcolonial theory and post- colonial analyses of Australian literature continue to be useful, relevant, and innovative. In fact, the future direction of Australian literary studies and postcolonial theory and criticism are almost certainly closely inter- twined. As Huggan argues in his conclusion to Australian Literature: Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism, “[P]ostcolonialism has much to offer Australian literary studies” (146). Huggan notes that “the infl uence of postcolonialism on Australian literary studies” has already Australian Literature as Postcolonial Literature 9

“been signifi cant” and suggests a transnational postcolonialism as the way forward, advocating for a “more nuanced” analysis of the literature of settler colonies (which, he notes, has been undertheorized) and the amalgamation of “postcolonial and critical race theory” (146–150). It is my hope that the chapters in this volume make a signifi cant contribution to the ongoing development and future direction of postcolonial Austra- lian literary studies. While I have chosen not to group the contents of this collection into clusters of chapters focusing on named themes, such as hybridity, resis- tance, and indigeneity, I have ordered the chapters in a way that I hope will allow the reader to ascertain the volume’s main aims and to make interesting and fruitful connections between chapters. Thus, the col- lection begins with Bill Ashcroft’s “Reading Post-Colonial Australia,” which presents a detailed and important argument for reading Australian literature as postcolonial literature. By examining “postcolonial medi- evalism” and regional literature, Nicholas Birns and Per Henningsgaard both push the scholarship of Australian literature in new and fascinat- ing directions, shedding light on underexplored topics. Nicholas Dunlop and Lesley Hawkes explore issues of postcolonial space, mapping, and belonging through their analysis of works by Janette Turner Hospital, David Malouf, Xavier Herbert, Miles Franklin, and Alexis Wright. Mar- tina Horakova examines the issue of non-Indigenous belonging, while Rebecca Weaver-Hightower addresses notions of white guilt over the dis- placement and harsh treatment of Indigenous peoples. Michael R. Grif- fi ths theorizes , race relations, and indigeneity in his analysis of Kim Scott’s Benang, while Tomoko Ichitani examines Indig- enous subjectivity in novels by Alexis Wright and Melissa Lucashenko. Katie Ellis makes a signifi cant contribution to the fi elds of disability studies, postcolonial studies, and Australian literature through her analy- sis of disability in Elizabeth Jolley’s The Well. Sarah Zapata provides a European perspective on Peter Carey, one of Australia’s most impor- tant contemporary novelists. Peter Mathews makes a subtly provoca- tive argument about postcolonialism in his chapter on Rodney Hall’s The Second Bridegroom, and Lyn McCredden provides a fascinating 10 POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES IN AUSTRALIAN LITERATURE

concluding chapter with her discussion of postcolonial poetry by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian poets. The thirteen contributors hail from Australia, Asia, North America, and Europe, making the collection truly international and demonstrat- ing the global interest in Australian literature. Clearly, Australian literary studies is not a fi eld in which research is conducted solely by Australians or Australian-based scholars, nor should it be. A quick perusal of this volume’s bibliography will provide ample evidence that scholarship on Australian literature is produced by researchers from many nations and published in many venues around the world. The seven non-Australian contributors to this volume provide a rich variety of fascinating perspec- tives and insights, demonstrating that Australian literature is a global concern (in every sense of the phrase).